Here are some sites worth looking at (thanks to Julie for thecart.org).
I do want to make it clear that I'm starting this research process with an open mind, and I'm equally prepared to find that the project is worthwhile, or in the wrong place, or that I need more information.
TSR's Facebook page-- Not a great source of information, but they do seem to post news updates fairly regularly. The site is about 4 miles east of Cle Elum, not north as the FB page says.
For a little while TSR had a blog, but then migrated the blog to their current project web page. The web site includes a "fact vs. fiction" page.
Seattle Times article, Feb. 1, 2010: "Proposed solar power plant tangled in many messy questions." I'm going to have to read this one a couple of times.
Forbes.com's report on the DNS determination.
Strategies 360, the strategic positioning (I think that means "PR") firm that seems to be handling everything related to the project. That the project was mentioned by Forbes indicates that S360 knows what they're doing.
A February announcement by TSR said that Potelco, a Sumner, WA utility contractor would be a "contractor and equity partner." FWIW, Potelco is also a client of S360 and is a subsidiary of Houston-based Quanta Services Inc., which has the enviable ticker symbol of PWR. Renewable Energy Corporation, a solar panel/system manufacturer in Moses Lake, is also a S360 client.
There appear to be two Facebook pages of groups expressing concern about TSR: Friends of the Teanaway River Valley and Citizens for a Rural Teanaway.
Citizens for a Rural Teanaway also has a very informative website where I'll be spending more time. Near the top of the page is a suggestion that the project is more suited for sagebrush country because of sagebrush's supposed inferior aesthetics compared to trees. As a person who grew up in sagebrush country, I happen to think sagebrush is beautiful, and dense trees kind of creep me out.
A January 27, 2010 Daily Record article about the Cle Elum City Council's concerns about the project.
Stay tuned....
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Whoa, whoa, whoa! I take a completely different view regarding sagebrush versus tree siting of the TSR project. Why? Because there is a misunderstanding that "nothing is there in sagebrush country" The simplest search on just Purshia tridentata will show the large number of species dependent upon its existence and persistence upon rangelands. E.O. Wilson has ponted out, repeatedly, that biological scope and diversity is greater on lands such as "nothing in that desolate sagebrush country" compared to the big-timbered parcels. The knowledge and perspective of the difference would cause even the the most tenuous holders of objectivity to re-think and evaluate alot of these "green" projects and where they should be sited. With the respect to TSR, do the evaluations for the current proposed site in a neutral methodology (not with a business school methodology where you "verify" the selected "facts" to support the premade policy) and see what then should be done. And if such a study is undertaken, I want to see a confidence level above 95% on the outcomes (because staying only at 95% translates into a 1 in 20 chance that the results are bogus. We're Kittitas County residents trying to get the best outcomes for the future, not a bunch of academic sociologists...) Thanks for the update and thoughts, Steve. This TSR proposal needs to be thought through completely and not like the windfarm proposals where it was a foregone conclusion that people look back in retrospect with regret. Hopefully, if you're elected, the County can change its operating policy away from "travelling hopefully" and into "planning to arrive successfully". Regards.
ReplyDeleteI think CART believes that ANY area that is chosen for a project this big should be studied with a FULL Environmental Impact Survey! CART also wants TSR to do the evaluations for more than just one site, that happens to be owned by the parent company of the TSR.
ReplyDelete